Anil Kumar Sah vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Alok Sharma, J

The matter comes up on an application (27588/2010) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for impleadment of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Kota as a party respondent to the petition.

The impleadment in a proceedings in Court is not a matter of choice or pleasure of the applicant. It is to be grounded on a foundation that one seeking impleadment in a pending litigation is either a necessary or proper party. Whether the applicant aforesaid is indeed a necessary or proper party in the present petition can be ascertained from the subject matter of the petition as evident from the reliefs prayed for therein. They read as under:-

(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the judgment of the Director Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 17-4-1989 (Annexure-22) and the notices dated 10-1-1989, 11-1-1989 (Annexure-21) and 18-2-1989 issued by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Kota may kindly be ordered to be quashed and the proceedings of the case pending before the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Kota may also kindly be ordered to be quashed;

(ii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order Or direction in the nature thereof, the petitioner may be declared as the Owner of the properties comprised in Brij Talkies Building, Mohan Kutir and lands on which dwelling units are being constructed and other lands situated at Nayapura Kota and sold to the petitioner's ancestors vide State Council Resolution No. 97 of 1941-42 dated 13-8-1942, and shown as Plot 'A' in the Patta dated 10-7-1943 issued by the Municipal Board, Kota.

(iii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quash the proceedings if any taken by the Non-petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the petitioner for his ejectment from the lands comprised in Plot A' of Patta dated 10-7-1943 issued by the Municipal Board, Kota.

(iv) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof Non-petitioners may be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner of the Brij Talkies Cinema Building and the lands enumerated in sub para (ii) of the prayer above.

(v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the Non-petitioners may be restrained from interfering in the construction of dwelling units for weaker sections of the society which is being undertaken by the petitioner under the orders of the Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Kota dated 17-1-1984, and enumerated in sub para (ii) of the prayer above.

(vi) any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances stated above, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(vii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Whatever the merits of the aforesaid prayers, the issue agitated in this petition is fundamentally with regard to the petitioner's ownership of the immovable property, details of which have been set out in the petition.

In the context of the disputes in the petition and prayers, I am of the considered view that, aside of not at all being a necessary party in whose absence, the determination of the subject matter in the petition would be not possible, the applicant is not even a proper party his presence before the Court is not even necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions agitated in this petition. The presence of the applicant on the facts agitated in the petition is therefore not even remotely warranted. The application for impleadment is therefore liable to be dismissed.

The dismissal of the impleadment application is not however to say that the applicant does not have any right under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Those rights independent of the lis in this petition as they are, be pursued elsewhere in the manner law provides.

There being no force in the application for impleadment, it is accordingly dismissed.